Relative Performance of Grit Removal Systems

Presented by:
Patrick Herrick
Hydro International Wastewater Division
2925 NW Aloclek Drive #140
Hillsboro, OR 97124, USA

Presented at:
2013 Western Canada Water Conference - Liquid Assets
September 17-20, 2013 - Edmonton, Alberta

ABSTRACT
Biological processes continue to evolve toward better effluent quality in a smaller footprint. The fact that these
processes are housed in a small footprint means that they have an inherent inability to store grit and debris. This,
in conjunction with the trend towards reductions in plant personnel, drives the need for advanced headworks
processes that are more effective at removing grit and debris. Screening, for example, has trended toward
progressively smaller openings with 6 mm (1/4) screens commonly used. Smaller openings are required
for certain biological processes, specifically Membrane Bio-Reactors for which some manufacturers require
openings as small as 1 mm (0.040)1. This trend towards finer screening is also reflected in the increasing
demand for improved grit removal processes as a part of plant design and upgrades.
Grit is a nuisance material that causes abrasive wear to mechanical equipment increasing maintenance and
operational costs while reducing equipment performance and useful life. Grit that is not captured in the
headworks accumulates in processes throughout the plant, reducing capacity and detention time, and adversely
influencing flow and circulation patterns2. Deposited grit must be manually removed, handled, hauled and
disposed. Abrasive wear, process inefficiencies and basin cleaning operations increase treatment plant operating
expenses.
Choosing a grit removal technology has often been based on equipment price with little regard for device
efficacy and consequent grit removal efficiency. Owners and engineers are forced to navigate a field of, what
can be conflicting, performance claims made by various equipment manufacturers. This situation is perpetuated
by the fact that there is no accepted, peer reviewed test standard for grit sampling and analysis.
The purpose of this paper is to encapsulate various grit removal system performance data generated by
a repeatable sampling and analysis methodology for the purpose of comparing virtually all grit removal
technologies in terms of their effectiveness.
Keywords: Grit, removal efficiency, aerated grit basin, mechanically induced vortex unit, stacked tray system,
structured flow unit, detritus tank, test methodology, grit sampling, surface loading rate

Herrick, P. - Relative Performance of Grit Removal Systems - Presented at Western Canada Water Conference 2013

INTRODUCTION
Biological processes continue to evolve toward better effluent quality in a smaller footprint. The current trend
of housing these processes and systems in smaller and smaller footprints imply an inherent inability to store grit
and debris. Treatment plants now operate with reduced numbers of maintenance and operations staff, which in
turn is resulting in significant reductions in the available resources and time to tackle and address the negative
impacts of grit and debris.
Headworks screening and grit removal are the primary protection for all treatment processes and equipment in
a wastewater treatment plant, yet it has been the most neglected part of the plant. To improve solids removal,
screen openings on influent screens have trended progressively smaller over the past 10-15 years. Years ago,
screen openings were frequently 25 mm (1) and larger. Today, screens are commonly supplied with 6 mm ()
openings. It is logical that advancing grit removal processes, to effectively remove incoming grit, are becoming
a higher priority in plant designs.
Selecting grit removal technologies can be a challenge due to the lack of comparative performance data
available within the wastewater industry. Owners and engineers are forced to navigate a field of, what can be
conflicting, performance claims made by various equipment manufacturers. This situation is perpetuated by the
fact that there is no accepted, peer reviewed test standard for grit sampling and analysis.
As, there are no Standard Methods for the comprehensive measurement and analysis of sampled grit, most
parties utilize conventional ASTM D-422 to obtain the physical particle size distribution of grit collected by
various means. Standard Method 2540 for solids testing is used for determining Total, Fixed, and Volatile
Solids. A method that Engineers and Owners have found effective, splits the sample with half being tested via
ASTM D-422 and the other half being wet sieved and characterized based on settling velocity3. In addition to
physical size distribution, settling velocity is often the most important and useful criterion in grit system design.
Settling velocity is central to grit system design as technologies used to collect influent grit are predominantly
sedimentation processes2. Sedimentation basins and aerated grit basins (AGB) are recognized as gravity
processes. Vortex processes utilizing a forced vortex type flow regime also rely predominantly on gravity for
separation. When the force balance on a particle is evaluated within a forced vortex type flow regime in a
basin, gravity is shown to be the predominant force, well in excess of the centrifugal forces generated by slow
rotational velocity.
While settling velocity is an important criterion in grit system design, the removal efficiency data presented in
this paper is based on particle size distribution alone and does not consider settling velocity. Settling velocity is
discussed elsewhere4.
As most performance guarantees are based on 2.65 specific gravity (SG) it is worth noting that observed
performance can vary widely from performance claims. While some of the variance is certainly attributed to the
SG of grit being less than 2.65 and other factors4, wide variations from performance claims are likely influenced
by other factors such as short circuiting and/or inaccurate sizing.
METHODOLOGY
Effective test methodology must provide accurate, consistent, repeatable and reproducible results. One of
several grit sampling methods used by owners and engineers is the vertical slot sampler (VSS). The VSS is
designed to draw off a known vertical slice of the influent water column to provide an accurate sample of
incoming solids. Although not detailed in ASTM manuals or Standard Methods, sampling using the VSS
has been found to produce results that are repeatable, effective and allow efficiency comparisons at different

Herrick, P. - Relative Performance of Grit Removal Systems - Presented at Western Canada Water Conference 2013

treatment plants5. Further, results determined with the VSS corroborates with the operating history and
performance at those plants with respect to grit removal, suggesting the accuracy of the test method6. This
same test methodology can be used for comparison of grit removal efficiency of various technologies. The
VSS methodology used in the referenced studies provides a repeatable sampling and analysis methodology that
allows for the relative comparison of removal efficiency for different devices. The test methodology typically
includes a margin of error of +/- 5% and is described elsewhere 3,5. Data collected and presented herein has been
made available in various industry publications and reports as cited.
Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD) performed comprehensive testing at five of their wastewater
treatment plants in 2007 and 2008 utilizing the VSS sampling method. The equipment tested included three
different mechanically induced vortex systems (MIV), a Detritor system and an aerated grit system (AGB)5.
During the same period, HRSD conducted a side-byside pilot test comparing the stacked tray Eutek HeadCell
unit and the structured flow Grit King unit. Both systems were tested for removal efficiency using the VSS
sampling method7.
Data collected on the HRSD AGB has been excluded from this paper. During the above referenced testing,
which was performed on dry weather flows, it was determined that the grit was settling in the force main as
there was not sufficient energy in the collection system to transport grit to the plant. At peak diurnal flows the
velocity in the force main was 0.5 m/s (1.7 fps), when 0.9 1.5 m/s (3.5-5.0 fps) is needed to re-suspend settled
solids and grit6. Therefore, data from testing on the AGB was inconclusive. However, the same collection and
analysis methodology was used in Columbus GA on an AGB, that data is included in this paper.
This paper provides removal efficiency, utilizing identical and consistent sampling and analysis methodology,
of virtually every type of grit removal technology, thus allowing comparison of removal efficiency of these
technologies. The processes represented include AGB, vortex grit removal systems, and detritus tanks. The
vortex units include mechanically induced vortex (MIV) units, stacked tray units and structured flow vortex
units.
RESULTS
Mechanically Induced Vortex (MIV) Units
HRSD Chesapeake-Elizabeth Treatment Plant
The Chesapeake Elizabeth Treatment Plant (CETP) is a 91 ML/d (24 MGD) capacity plant operating with an
average flow of approximately 72 ML/d (19 MGD). Grit removal equipment consists of two (2) 7.3 m (24)
diameter MIV units, one unit was in operation during the study. Design removal parameter for each unit is 95%
removal of 150 m particles, 2.65 SG, at 114 ML/d (30 MGD), and 95% removal of 270 m particles, 2.65 SG,
at 265 ML/d (70 MGD).
Average flow during testing was 71.1 ML/d (18.79 MGD), which is well below the rated capacity of the grit
unit. The observed removal efficiency was 48-52% of all grit 150 m and larger and 45-50% of all grit 106
micron and larger. Removal efficiency of particles > 297 microns, a slightly larger particle than the performance
claim, was 72-78% or roughly 20% less than the claimed removal.

CETP

May 17, 2007

May 18, 2007

#50 Mesh (>297

microns)
72.6
77.8

Table #1 Removal Efficiency of MIV

% Removal Efficiency
#70 Mesh
#100 Mesh
Total % Removal Total % Removal
(<297 microns
(<211 microns
150 m and up
106 m and up
>211 microns)
>150 microns)
19.1
7.0
48.1
45.8
28.9
14.7
52.1
50.9

Herrick, P. - Relative Performance of Grit Removal Systems - Presented at Western Canada Water Conference 2013

HRSD Virginia Initiative Plant

The Virginia Initiative Plant (VIP) is a 151 ML/d (40 MGD) capacity plant with an average flow of
approximately 110 ML/d (29 MGD). The plant employs three 6.1 m (20 ft) diameter MIV units, one unit was in
operation during the study. The vortex manufacturer states that each unit will remove 65% of 150 m grit, 2.0
SG, at 101 ML/d (26.7 MGD). Average flow during three days of testing was 99.2 ML/d (26.23 MGD), very
near the rated capacity of the grit units. The observed removal efficiency was 43-45% of all grit 150 m and
larger, 20% below the claimed efficiency, and 43-44% of all grit 106 micron and larger.
Table #2 Removal Efficiency of MIV

VIP

#50 Mesh (>297

microns)

May 20, 2007

May 21, 2007
May 22, 2007

57.7
60.5
59.3

% Removal Efficiency
#70 Mesh (<297 #100 Mesh
Total % Removal Total % Removal
microns >211
(<211 microns
150 m and up
106 m and up
microns)
>150 microns)
29.8
22.7
45.3
44.3
26.8
23.2
45.1
43.7
33.2
27.9
43.3
43.3

Detritus Tank
HRSD James River Treatment Plant History
The testing at HRSD included testing at the James River Treatment Plant (JRTP) which operates detritus tanks
for grit removal. The JRTP is a 76 ML/d (20 MGD) capacity plant with an average flow of approximately 49
ML/d (13 MGD). The JRTP employs four detritors. Each detritor is 8.5m (28) diameter with a design capacity
of 24.6 ML/d (6.5 MGD). Each unit is designed to remove grit particles 150 m and larger, with 2.65 SG.
Average flow to the plant during three days of testing was 48.75 ML/d (12.88 MGD) with one of the detritor
units out of service; therefore each unit was processing approximately 16.27 ML/d (4.3 MGD) or roughly 33%
below their rated capacity. The observed removal efficiency was 66-73% of all grit 150 m and larger and 5768% of all grit 106 micron and larger.

JRTP
June 17, 2007
June 18, 2007
June 19, 2007

Table #3 Removal Efficiency of Detritus Tank

% Removal Efficiency
#50 Mesh (>297 #70 Mesh (<297 #100 Mesh
Total % Removal Total % Removal
microns)
microns >211
(<211 microns
150 m and up
106 m and up
microns)
>150 microns)
81.8
72.6
41.7
66.2
57.3
76.9
77.2
66.6
73.2
67.7
82.6
74.7
55.3
71.2
64.2

Aerated Grit Basin

Columbus GA South Water Reclamation Facility
The City of Columbus, GA South Water Reclamation Facility (SWRC) operates four AGB units that receive
a combined average daily flow of approximately 106 ML/d (28.0 MGD). A rain event occurred on January
28th, 2008 resulting in an increase in the flow to 143.84 ML/d (38 MGD) with a maximum hourly flow of
185.5 ML/d (49 MGD). As can be seen from the results below, when the flow to the grit chamber increased the
removal efficiency decreased, as would be expected.
The plant has two AGB that are 5.18m x 11.89m (17 x 39) and two basins 3.96m x 10.97m (13 x 36). While
no design removal efficiency data exists, total surface area available for grit settling is 210 m2 (2,262 ft2). Based
Herrick, P. - Relative Performance of Grit Removal Systems - Presented at Western Canada Water Conference 2013

on the average flow of 106 ML/d (28.0 MGD), the AGB system has a surface loading rate (SLR) of 0.35 m3/
min./m2 (8.6 gpm/ft2) and would be expected to remove a significant percentage of fine particles, 106 micron
and below. The plant notices a decrease in removal efficiency at flows in excess of 132.5 ML/d (35 MGD).
Once the flowreaches 132.5 ML/d (35 MGD) the SLR increases to 0.435 m3/min./m2 (10.7 gpm/ft2). Based on
SLR alone the basin would still be expected to retain a percentage of fine particles at 132.5 ML/d (35 MGD)
with particle size retained increasing, and overall capture efficiency decreasing, as flow continues to rise.
The observed removal efficiency was 35-70% of all grit 150 m and larger and 32-67% of all grit 106 micron
and larger when the wet weather data is included. Removal efficiency improves to 58-70% of all grit 150 m
and larger and 53-67% of all grit 106 micron and larger during average flow of 106 ML/d (28.0 MGD). While
excluding the performance during the wet weather event indicates improved performance, removal efficiency is
well below what would be expected based solely on SLR.
Table #4 Removal Efficiency of Aerated Grit Basin
Columbus

Jan 27, 2008

Jan 28, 2008
Jan 29, 2009

#50 Mesh (>297

microns)
81.8
53.0
66.3

% Removal Efficiency
#70 Mesh (<297 #100 Mesh
Total % Removal Total % Removal
microns >211
(<211 microns
150 m and up
106 m and up
microns)
>150 microns)
49.8
42.2
70.5
67.2
13.5
21.7
.35.6
32.5
60.0
44.4
58.7
53.1

Stacked Tray System

While considering a new grit system for their Army Base Treatment Plant (ABTP), HRSD tested two grit
removal technologies side-by-side in December of 2007. The stacked tray Eutek HeadCell unit was tested
side-by-side a Grit King structured flow unit using the same sampling and testing methodology. During the
pilot test the stacked tray HeadCell unit was fed at 38.6-38.8 m3/hr (170-171 gpm). At that flow rate the Stacked
Tray unit was designed to remove 95% of all grit 75 micron and larger, with 2.65 SG, however performance
was not tested for 75 micron particles. The observed removal efficiency was 92-93% of all grit 150 m and
larger and 89-90% of all grit 106 micron and larger.
Table #5 Removal Efficiency of Stacked Tray System
% Removal Efficiency
Stacked Tray #50 Mesh (>297 #70 Mesh (<297 #100 Mesh
Total % Removal Total % Removal
microns)
microns >211
(<211 microns
150 m and up
106 m and up
microns)
>150 microns)
Dec 17, 2007
95.8
90.4
81.5
91.9
88.8
Dec 19, 2007
95.7
93.0
85.6
92.5
89.3

Herrick, P. - Relative Performance of Grit Removal Systems - Presented at Western Canada Water Conference 2013

Structured Flow System

During the side-by-side testing the 1.2 m (4) diameter structured flow Grit King pilot unit was fed at a rate
of 38.8 m3/hr (170 gpm) on December 17th and 25.4 m3/hr (112 gpm) on December 19th. Design removal
parameter at the higher flow is 95% of all grit 106 micron and larger, 2.65 SG. At the lower flow of 25.4 m3/hr
(112 gpm) the removal would be expected to be 95% of all grit 75 micron and larger, 2.65 SG, however removal
efficiency for 75 micron particles was not reported. As would be expected, the removal efficiency improves at
the lower flow rate as loading rate to the unit is reduced. The observed removal efficiency was 90-95% of all
grit 150 m and larger and 87-93% of all grit 106 micron and larger.
Table #6 Removal Efficiency of Structured Flow Vortex Unit
% Removal Efficiency
Stacked Tray #50 Mesh (>297 #70 Mesh (<297 #100 Mesh
Total % Removal Total % Removal
microns)
microns >211
(<211 microns
150 m and up
106 m and up
microns)
>150 microns)
Dec 17, 2007
95.8
90.4
81.5
91.9
88.8
Dec 19, 2007
95.7
93.0
85.6
92.5
89.3
112 gpm
DISCUSSION
As can be seen from the above data, testing results for the mechanically induced vortex technology were
considerably below the manufacturers claimed removal efficiency even when running the unit well below
design flows. The testing results indicate this technology had its highest observed removal efficiencies for large
grit particles, approximately 60%+ removal of particles larger than 297 micron, and very low performance
removing smaller particles, with less than 30% removal of particles 210 micron and smaller.
At CETP the MIV was designed to remove 95% of grit 150 micron and larger, with 2.65 SG at a flow of 114
ML/d (30 MGD). When operating at 63% of the design flow (71.1 ML/d (18.79 MGD), the observed removal
efficiency of grit particles 150 microns and larger was 48-52%, which is more than 40% less than the stated
claim. The 7.3 m (24) diameter MIV unit has a surface area of 41.83 m2 (452 ft2), which results in an estimated
SLR of 1.18 m3/min./m2 (28.97 gpm/ft2) at 71.1 ML/d (18.79 MGD). Based on the SLR the MIV technology
would, in theory, be expected to retain a large percentage of particles approximately 165 micron and larger.
The observed removal efficiency for much larger particles, 297 microns and larger, was only 72-78%. The low
removal efficiency suggests the importance of considering the likely effects of grit settling velocity and other
criteria.
Based on operational data from VIP it was found that placing more vortex units into service improved grit
removal. During 2007 the plant averaged 99 ML/d (26.2 MGD) and used one vortex unit 83% of the year.
For 2008, two vortex units were in service for 75% of the year and grit production increased 50% over 2007
performance. HRSD determined that operating a vortex close to the maximum rated hydraulic efficiency may
not be advisable for some treatment plants. Further they concluded that with this technology placing additional
grit removal units in service during high hydraulic events can minimize the impacts of grit slug loads on
downstream unit processes.
While test data indicates the Detritus tank achieves higher removal efficiency than the MIV technology, the
Detritus tank also fell short of design removal efficiency while operating at 66% of design flow. Test data shows
relatively high removal efficiencies of large grit particles, 77%+ removal of particles larger than 297 micron
and, as would be expected, reduced capability of removing smaller particles, 64%+ removal of particles 210
micron and smaller. Although an older style technology, sampling and analysis for the detritus tank displayed
Herrick, P. - Relative Performance of Grit Removal Systems - Presented at Western Canada Water Conference 2013

some of the higher removal efficiencies of the technologies tested. Removal efficiency would be expected to
decline at peak design flow.
The AGB results were comparable to those for the Detritus tank during the plant average flow, 58-67% of all
grit 106 microns and larger was removed. During wet weather when the system received the design flow rate,
removal efficiency was reduced to 32.5%. Even considering the small increase in flow during the rain event,
which was in the region of 135-175% of average, the quantity of grit increased substantially from 3.36 g/
m3 (28.1 lbs./MG) to 8.89 g/m3 (74.2 lbs./MG). The fraction of grit smaller than 297-microns also increased
significantly. The
increased grit quantity and elevated fraction of small grit resulted in the observed poor removal efficiencies.
A reduction in removal efficiency at higher flows is expected, however, during the elevated flow, influent grit
concentration also increased by a factor of more than 2.5 times the prior day dry weather influent levels. A
removal efficiency of 32-35% of the heavier grit load will obviously not be adequate to protect the plant from
deposition and abrasive wear.
The stacked tray system and structured flow unit test results exhibited very high removal rates. While the
performance results for these two technologies were performed as a pilot study they are consistent with full
scale performance tests, using the identical test method, at other facilities8,9. Measured removal efficiency for
both technologies was slightly below manufacturers claimed removal efficiencies, within +/- 8%. This small
deviation is very near the margin of error in testing. Comparatively, these two technologies provide very high
removal efficiencies of large grit particles, 93%+ removal of particles larger than 300 micron. The observed
removal efficiency of particles 150 - 210 micron was only slightly less and ranged from 78-90%+. Both of
these technologies displayed the highest removal efficiency of the technologies tested, in all cases >87.5% of all
influent grit 106 micron and larger was captured.
CONCLUSIONS
Grit sampling using the VSS method produces results that are repeatable, accurate and effective. The results
corroborate with grit system performance and plant operating history therefore this data provides insight into
what most operators experience. Using this common testing method allows comparison of performance of
various grit removal technologies and can assist in improving grit system design and justifying advanced
processes.
Table #7 Relative Performance of Grit Removal Devices
Technology

MIV

Detritor
AGB
Stacked Tray
Structured Flow
Vortex

% of Design Flow

27-90

66
66-100
100
66-100
m, 2.65 SG

Design Removal
Observed Total %
Efficiency at 100% Removal 150
Flow
m and up
95% removal of 270
43-52
m, 2.65 SG
65% removal of 150
m, 2.0 SG
150 m and larger,
66-71
2.65 SG
Unknown
35-70
95% removal of 75
91-92.5
m, 2.65 SG
95% removal of 106
90-95
m, 2.65 SG

Observed Total %
Removal 106 m
and up
43-50

57-69
32-67
89-90
97-93

Herrick, P. - Relative Performance of Grit Removal Systems - Presented at Western Canada Water Conference 2013

Based on the reported and referenced testing, the technologies that displayed the lowest removal efficiencies
were the AGB and the MIV technology. The observed removal efficiency for both technologies was well below
claimed removal at peak flows. The AGB displayed a relative removal of only 32% of all grit 106 micron and
larger when operated at peak design flow. Results for the AGB improve to 53-67% when influent flow to the
unit is reduced to 66% of design.
The MIV technology removed 43-51% of incoming grit 106 micron and larger when operated at 27-90% of
design flows. As is true of all SLR based technologies, the MIV technology shows higher removal efficiencies
at lower flows. When operating near design flow rate, removal efficiency was in the 43-45% range for all
grit 106 micron and larger. As flows decrease, to 63% of average flow and 12% of peak flow, the efficiency
increases, but only marginally, to 45-50% removal of grit 106 micron and larger.
The detritus tank displayed a higher removal rate, removing 57-69% of all grit 106 micron and larger when
operating at average flows, in the region of 66% of peak design flow. The AGB displayed similar results when
operated at 66% of peak flow. When flows increased to peak, the AGB removal efficiency dropped to 32% and
the detritus tanks would be expected to have similar results as flows increase.
The structured flow vortex and stacked tray vortex units had very high removal rates, none lower than 87.5%
of incoming grit 106 micron and larger. These results are significantly (20% to 55%) higher than any of the
other technologies tested. Over the life of the facility, the difference in captured grit is substantial. Also of note,
is the fact that high removal results were achieved with the equipment running at peak design flow. None of
the technologies tested met their performance claim exactly, although the technologies that targeted the finest
particles displayed the best results and came closest to achieving their performance claim. Systems designed for
high removal efficiency of small particles, 106 micron and finer, should remove 85% or more of grit entering
the plant.
The observed decrease in performance with increased flows provides strong evidence that the tested
technologies are strongly influenced by loading rate and gravity to capture and retain grit. A better
understanding of in situ grit settling velocity will allow for more efficient design which would afford the plant
increased protection from abrasive wear and deposition.
Wet weather is an important consideration in grit system design. The impact of wet weather flows was
documented during testing of the ABG in Columbus, GA. Considering the small increase in flow during the rain
event, 135-160% of average, the quantity of grit increased much more dramatically, to more than 2.5 times the
volume entering the plant during the prior day average flow. One would expect the greatest increase would be
of coarse grit particles but the overall gradation was finer. Grit quantities increased across all size ranges but
the grit fraction larger than 297 micron decreased, from 61.7% to 39.0%, while particles in the 105-210 micron
range increased from 20.6% to 39.7% of the total. Overall, a 60% increase in flow resulted in a 48% decrease in
performance.
Significant increase in grit volumes during wet weather events is a common phenomenon10 and indicates the
need to design the grit system for effective removal at peak hydraulic loadings. The AGB and MIV performed
poorly at peak design flow and based on the data the detritus tank would be expected to perform similarly to
the AGB. Observed removal efficiencies were less than what would be expected based on SLR alone indicating
process inefficiencies or grit settling velocity implications.
Designing the grit removal system for high removal efficiency at peak hydraulic loading will protect the plant
from the negative impacts of grit. Advanced, compact, high-efficiency grit removal processes are therefore the
more appropriate proven choice to protect plants from deposition, abrasive wear and associated costs from this
nuisance material.
Herrick, P. - Relative Performance of Grit Removal Systems - Presented at Western Canada Water Conference 2013

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank Mr. Cliff Arnett, Senior Vice President, Columbus Water Works and Mr. Mike
Taylor, Superintendant, Columbus Water Works, South Columbus Water Resources Facility for permission to
use data from their testing and providing the additional information needed to compile the comparisons.
REFERENCES
1. Cote, Brink and Adnan (2006) Pretreatment Requirements for Membrane Bioreactors. WEFTEC
2. Sherony, Herrick, (2011) A Fresh Look at an Old Problem. Design Criteria for Effective Grit Removal. New
England Water Environment Association Journal, Spring 2011
3. https://blackdoganalytical.com/Methods.html (July 2012)
4. Osei, Gwinn & Andoh. (2012) Development of a Column to Measure Settling Velocity of Grit. World
Environmental & Water Resources Congress 2012 Conference Proceeding Paper
5. McNamara, Griffiths & Book. (2009) True Grit. A Grit Removal Efficiency Investigation at Five Wastewater
Treatment Plants. WEFTEC Conference Proceedings
6. McNamara. (2010) True Grit. The Conduit, Virginia Water Environment Association Winter 2010
7. McNamara, Kochaba, Griffiths & Book (2009) Grit vs. Grit. A Pilot Evaluation Comparing Two Grit
Removal Technologies. WEFTEC
8. Horton. (2011) Yellow River Grit Selection Gwinnett County. Georgia Water Professionals 2011 Annual
Conference and Expo, Conference Session
9. McKimm & Creed. (2007) Pump Station 4259 Grit Removal System Replacement Project WR444159 at the
Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, NC Performance Testing Report
10. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Technology Transfer Document, Wet Weather
Operating Practices for POTWs with Combined Sewers